Attack on the "Twin Towers" terrorism or planned?

I suggest you actually watch the video I posted instead of sending a canned response.

You're missing the fact that several independent studies into dust from 20 minutes after the collapse have found military grade thermite explosive chips -- undetonated -- in that dust.

 

I assume you are talking about this, the "pancake model"?
Well what happened to the cores?

Also, just to illustrate the absurdity of these models, let me remind you what the 'collapse' actually looked like:

 

So then the debate is over. You deny an otherwise perfectly credible scientist's credibility based on their claims (that's circular reasoning) and you also ignore the direct evidence of explosives material on the grounds that it is not used in regular demolitions (this, I suppose, being a regular demolition by your standards.)

I mean can you hear yourself think in that room high atop an ivory tower full of plates on spinning sticks? I suppose you add another plate whenever the world outside rudely interrupts your train of thought.

Just FYI, the evidence for this being controlled demolition is not even necessary. Anyone who has taken a mere year 10 level physics course can easily identify the energetic dynamic of a controlled demolition. To paraphrase Morbo: GRAVITY COLLAPSES DO NOT WORK THAT WAY.

 

It is Newtonian physics. That's what you study in year 10.

Have you read NIST's own reports? They reconstructed a huge section of floor in a furnace and put it under immense heat and pressure. Their mathematical model was so bad and so tortured that their experimental results were wildly divergent. They never recreated the phenomena they were asserting caused instantaneous explosive collapse.

See this is very clever, because there is no math, there is no mathematical model, and because there is no model, there is no authority for you to appeal to. 'The math' would only be useful if you had a working model of the towers. If you make a simple model: say a solid block, or a tube with a solid core and wafers, then the math is simple enough that it hardly need be considered. Needless to say the scale of the phenomenon and its likeness to existing phenomenon makes a highly complex model unnecessary. Occam's razor.

We know that net force = 0, if the normal force of the structure of the building is resisting gravity, and the building is not accelerating. So the structural integrity of the building must have provided at least enough force to hold the building against gravity. (1) That's premise one. And each of the lower floors must have provided enough structural normal force to hold up all of the floors above it against gravity (2). That's premise two.

Given that for each floor the net force must have been zero, and net force is the sum of relevant forces, you get:
net force = mass * acceleration (gravity) - mass * acceleration (normal force aka resistance) = 0.
The mass is constant for the entire building and for any given floor. So now we are only concerned with acceleration. If we divide out the m's, we get:
net acceleration = gravity - resistance
And if we measure the acceleration of the collapse via the use of seismographic data (which accurately show the start and end of collapse and are backed up by additional seismographs in different areas) we get a fairly accurate period of collapse which translates to somewhere very close to acceleration due to gravity assuming the building starts at rest. Let's say 9.5/m/s/s. (You can find the seismographic data if you like and we can debate the acceleration. But it's also been measured frame by frame in the myriad videos, and it's just behind the acceleration of gravity.)

This means you have: 9.5 = gravity - resistance = 9.8 - resistance
resistance = basically nothing.

Now even if all of the bolts in the entire building failed at once, their physical presence in the space that the building occupied would provide resistance. That is: the building would take time to fall apart, and would end up in a pyramid-shaped heap on the ground.

When they do controlled demolition they 'shift the columns' so that the buildings key supports are taken out of the path of resistance (the normal force is removed.) If you don't shift the columns but break all the supports then the structural integrity of the building is still greater than zero.

In order to have free fall acceleration, in other words, there must be no resistance. It must be like dropping a ball from the top of the wtc towers through the air. There's no physical mechanism to explain how exactly that structural material previously providing a normal force in the building first blew into little pieces then blew out the sides of the building laterally just in time for the wave of collapse to follow. You would basically have to invent a hypothetical mechanism (which you can't really do since this isn't theoretical science) to explain simply where the energy to make this happen came from -- because remember the lower floors were undamaged and structurally stronger than the upper floors.

I encourage you to check out NIST's own models and their failure to demonstrate a working mechanism for the collapse.
Here's a guide to help you navigate the waters of NIST's findings:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200612/NIST-WTC-Investigation.pdf

 

Well this is my point exactly. The official story is itself a conspiracy theory. A pretty poor one at that.

People have this programmed doublethink complex concerning authority wherein anything the authority says is to be regarded by a different standard than what other people say. But if you stop for a minute and just realize authority is only in your mind, the government is composed of people (mostly criminals to be honest) then you have a level playing field for your thoughts.

You can tell when people are not thinking clearly, because their concepts don't make any rational sense. They have a distorted -- preprogrammed -- epistemology that they've picked up from the government education system or from church or where-ever.

One of the most important things in waking people up is to really deconstruct for them what they are saying and show them the errors in their categorizations and concepts, and the relations between those concepts. For example if someone says that the 'invasion of Iraq was good' then you ask them if it would be good in general to have a foreign superpower invade your country, and build permanent bases, and not leave for 6+ years? You ask if joining a militia to repell the invaders would be a good idea if it happened here, then you point out that 'insurgents' are just these very same militias.

 

F = ma.

Which part is exponentially increasing? Mass is constant. And acceleration is constant. Force is constant.

Remember for any given floor, it previously was holding up all the floors above it. So, for example, the second topmost floor had to support a mass of 1 floor. The 10th topmost floor had to support a mass of 9 floors. Thus for each floor as you progress down the building the mass above it was already accounted for in the structural resistance. Therefore, even if we accept the premise that it should come down into its footprint, the structural resistance of the floors below should cause a negative acceleration on the falling mass. -- It's kinetic energy is being used up in the destruction of structural support material, and the force of gravity is being canceled by the normal force of the structure.

Evidence?

Sure it does. It absolutely does. No steel framed building has ever collapsed due to fire, let alone explosively collapsed at freefall (without even being hit by a plane in the case of wtc 7.)

See you don't have any real replies to give to my analysis, because you haven't done any real physics. You are just using canned responses off pro-government websites.

If you had done real physics you would not be demanding mathematical models. It would be entirely obvious to you just by looking at the video of collapse. That's the only thing that woke me up; When I watched the towers actually come down for the first time, I said: "so who blew them up?" Only later I realized it was supposed to have been the hijackers. To me this was and remains patently absurd. The phenomena recorded on video of the WTC collapses is explosive demolition. No if and's or buts about it.

 

There's no mass being added. The building's mass remains constant. The collapse mass for any given point is still equal to the mass of the floors that previously existed above that point. The building is tapered. Each floor as you progress from top to bottom is structurally stronger than the last floor.

Do you not understand this basic concept?

It doesn't conflict. You are misrepresenting and obfuscating the empirical visual data to confirm your hypothesis. This is unscientific and patently corrupt.

The burden of proof here is not on me, it is on you. The acceleration observed, the height of the building, and the seismic data agree. Just because there is a cloud of dust near the bottom does not mean you can substitute your own data.

This doesn't warrant comment. Science is not about 'being reasonable'.

This is just asinine. Physics is about physical relations, it is both quantitative and qualitative.

I already gave you the ratios, the arguments, and you won't read any white papers with the real numbers and physical analyzes in them because you they conflict with your world view. Why even bother having a debate?

Law of conservation of energy. Occam's razor.

Problem: not enough energy to explode buildings given scenario.
Possible solutions: invent new mechanism, or search for existing mechanism using empirical evidence.
Take option two: Unexploded explosives found in WTC dust.
Occam's razor: Don't needlessly multiply entities. Simpliest of two hypotheses should be preferred.

Hypotheses:
1. Theoretical mechanism for explosive gravity building collapse, no laboratory tests to support mechanism, attempted tests show negative data.
2. Explosive demolition using a combination of conventional explosives and military grade thermite, of which unexploded portions have been found and verified. Well documented mechanism, empirical data fully agrees with theoretical results, measured and predicted values agree in all three cases.

Hmm let's see... which one to go for...

 

I'm not here to give you a physics lesson. If you want to have a physics debate I suggest you go read a year 10 textbook (that's all you need) on Newtonian physics and come back and try again. Although, obviously, by that time you will already agree with me because this isn't complicated.

Yes. But you won't read it, so you shouldn't bother asking.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/ExplosionInTowerBeforeJetHitByFurlongAndRoss.pdf
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_wtc.html
http://www.mgs.md.gov/esic/publications/download/911pentagon.pdf

Oh ok then:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200703/Sudden_collapse_initiation_impossible.pdf
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200703/GUrich/MassAndPeWtc.pdf
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/LeggeVerticalCollapseWTC7_6.pdf
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/GrabbeExplosionsEvidence.pdf
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/ProfMorroneOnMeltingWTCsteel.pdf
http://www.journalof911studies.com/...eration-Study-Proves-Explosive-Demolition.pdf
http://www.ae911truth.org/docs/Seffenrevpub.pdf

I could go on and on with literally hundreds of papers, many of them peer reviewed, discussing the basic physics and why the official models are both unscientific and empirically and theoretically wrong.

Ok then, let's purely use the scientific method:
My turn: All the empirical evidence is on my side.
Your turn: ...